The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Felonious assault is a felony and as such, a person can be charged with the crime.

Not to sound cold, but since Treyvon is deceased…what would he be charged with?

But trying a dead man is a waste of time.

That's why Zimmerman is on trial.

Innocent until proven guilty?

You can't claim Trayvon was commiting a felony against Zimmerman if he has never been convicted of it.

You are completely missing the point.

The defense can't use the "Trayvon was commiting a felony against Zimmerman" argument because Trayvon has not been convicted and found guilty of a felony. So that argument is dead on arrival.

reply to post by firemonkey


Read and understand the law.......
People are supposed to wait until their attacker is convicted? Are you serious?

Originally posted by firemonkey

It's so ironic that people keep saying that Zimmerman had every right to follow Trayvon...but it seems like you don't think Trayvon had the right to walk around the neighborhood. Why is that?

That is simple:

No one has stated or believes that TM didn't have the right to walk around the neighborhood. Perhaps you should show us just one statement that denies his right to do that?

What TM did NOT have the right to do is to assault someone following him.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by firemonkey

 

He did not have a right if he did not live there. Zimmerman did not know he was staying there. Walking around was not Martin's crime. Assault and battery was. That is where he went wrong.

People do not have a right to be here without reason, unless they live here.

edit on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:47:01 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

But he did have a reason for being there...and Zimmerman isn't a judge/jury/executioner responsible for deciding if he "belonged" there.

That is the entire problem of the case...Zimmerman was the one that had no right to do what he did...not Trayvon...Trayvon was just walking home to where he was staying.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by muse7

 

My mistake. He actually said looking at the houses, good call. Still counts, a stranger looking around at houses would still be approached the same way. See if they need help finding a house or something, see what they are doing here. If they can't give me a good reason, I will tell them to leave the neighborhood, and follow them to the outlet road to make sure they do.

Transcript

edit on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:37:00 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

What if the reply to your question of "do you need help finding a house or something" was " f@@k off"?

How would you react?
Do think the person your questioning owes you an answer?

Originally posted by firemonkey
Is it illegal to walk around a neighborhood? Even if it is one you don't live in?

It's so ironic that people keep saying that Zimmerman had every right to follow Trayvon...but it seems like you don't think Trayvon had the right to walk around the neighborhood. Why is that?

I have went for walks before when I first moved to a new city and have been approached in certain neighborhoods and asked what I was doing there and why I was walking around. It is not illegal but if you are not recognized you might be approached and asked, especially if it is a high crime area.

reply to post by firemonkey


That's absurd.

Felony assault is an act.

CONVICTED of felony assault means you got caught, but the act is the act. I"m pretty sure there some eye witness testimony as to that happening in this case too.

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by firemonkey

It's so ironic that people keep saying that Zimmerman had every right to follow Trayvon...but it seems like you don't think Trayvon had the right to walk around the neighborhood. Why is that?

That is simple:

No one has stated or believes that TM didn't have the right to walk around the neighborhood. Perhaps you should show us just one statement that denies his right to do that?

What TM did NOT have the right to do is to assault someone following him.

So only Zimmerman has the right to stand his ground? If I saw someone following me around I would sure as heck try to stand my ground. What if Trayvon feared for his life?

reply to post by PLASIFISK


Being that this is a private neighborhood, I will ask him to leave. He is then criminal trespassing.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by firemonkey

 

Read and understand the law.......
People are supposed to wait until their attacker is convicted? Are you serious?

edit on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:49:09 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

No, they can act...but they have to wait to be acquitted using that argument until a felony conviction on the other person is actually found.

You can't just kill someone then, as the only eye witness, say that the person was commiting a felony against you. No one saw the start of the fight, there is no proof at all who started the fight...only Zimmerman's word.

Originally posted by muse7
So only Zimmerman has the right to stand his ground? If I saw someone following me around I would sure as heck try to stand my ground. What if Trayvon feared for his life?

If Trayvon was the "scared child" that the prosecutor said that he was, why didn't he continue on into the house when he was less than a football field away from it instead of going back to where he met up with GZ?

reply to post by firemonkey

782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

Learn the law, please.

So only Zimmerman has the right to stand his ground? If I saw someone following me around I would sure as heck try to stand my ground.

You might be misinterpreting the meaning of the stand you ground law.

reply to post by muse7


And if you were to get shot from said person you would think it was his fault? Why would you need to stand your ground and attack a person for walking behind you?

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by firemonkey

 

He did not have a right if he did not live there. Zimmerman did not know he was staying there. Walking around was not Martin's crime. Assault and battery was. That is where he went wrong.

People do not have a right to be here without reason, unless they live here.

edit on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:47:01 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

But he did have a reason for being there...and Zimmerman isn't a judge/jury/executioner responsible for deciding if he "belonged" there.

That is the entire problem of the case...Zimmerman was the one that had no right to do what he did...not Trayvon...Trayvon was just walking home to where he was staying.

Maybe a psychic could determine that...but I don't think that would be admissable in a court of law.

We don't know what either was thinking at the time. All we know is what GZ and the witnesses said.

For all we know, Treyvon could have been casing future break-ins, or he was just walking home. Nobody really knows.

All we have to go on is evidence. That is what the trial is about. I don't have a dog in this hunt. But I think that the prosecution did a poor job. I think that the POTUS spoke out of turn and further fanned the flames of discord. And I think that the MSM is further fanning those flames so they can film what they hope are riots so their ratings spike.

This is a freaking circus.

reply to post by firemonkey


GZ wasn't a judge, a jury, or an executioner.

He was a victim and he practiced his right to self defense.

Originally posted by tjack
reply to post by firemonkey

 

That's absurd.

Felony assault is an act.

CONVICTED of felony assault means you got caught, but the act is the act. I"m pretty sure there some eye witness testimony as to that happening in this case too.

There are no eye witnesses of the start of the fight.

We have Zimmerman saying Trayvon started it...but he never testified...did he?

reply to post by muse7


Stand your ground only applies if you are not the one who instigated confrontation. You lose the right to stand your ground the moment you break the law in doing so. Assault is breaking the law, the assault that occured was felonious in nature.

Why is it so hard to understand that assault is the illegal act that occured which lead to the untimely death of martin?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by PLASIFISK

 

Being that this is a private neighborhood, I will ask him to leave. He is then criminal trespassing.

Ok . How about he does live there, but has only Been there a few days.

You ask him to leave and he now sees you as a potential threat and is not the type to " flight ".

He responds with " you f@@king leave "

Now what?

I am on pins and needles...

Acquit...Acquit...Acquit.....